Castel Viandes trial: twelve months in prison required against the CEO of the slaughterhouse


Charles Guyard, edited by Nathanaël Bentura
modified to

2:48 p.m., May 06, 2022

The trial of Castel Meats opened this Thursday in Nantes, a case that dates back nine years. According to a manager, spoiled meat was repackaged and then resold by this slaughterhouse. The requisitions of the prosecution against the three accused, including the boss of the company, were given this Friday morning.

The requisitions in the trial against Castel Viandes, this slaughterhouse accused of having repackaged and then resold spoiled meat, distinguish the hierarchy of each of the three accused. At the top, the CEO of Castel Viandes, against whom the public prosecutor demanded a twelve-month suspended prison sentence and a 15,000 euro fine; six and four months suspended sentence and 5,000 and 3,000 euros fine against two executives of the company. Different sanctions therefore, but a common reproach, that of having adopted irresponsible behavior, generalized and motivated by the search for profits, between 2010 and 2013, pointed out the prosecutor.

A case judged too late

Repackaging, marketing of spoiled or expired meat, obstruction of the investigation, the grievances against the company and its executives are numerous. According to Benoît Chabert, the lawyer for Castel Viandes, against whom a fine of 100,000 euros has also been requested, these grievances do not exist: “Castel Viandes is innocent. To condemn someone, to condemn a society, there is a penal code. In this case, these are community rules. They have never been transgressed. We are in a file that has been read with bias,” he said. valued.

A case which above all was judged too many years late, as Éva Joly, the lawyer for one of the civil parties, deplored: “I would not say that the requisitions are particularly heavy because the prosecutor held account of the age of the facts. If the case had been tried in 2014, the requisitions would have been heavier.”

After a day of debates, the floor is now for the defence. The court should then reserve its decision.



Source link -79